Archive a project permanently to preserve its data while removing it from active listings. Provide the project ID to exclude it from future listings.
Archive a project. Archived projects are preserved but excluded from listing. This is permanent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | The project ID to archive |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.22.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: archived projects are 'preserved but excluded from listing,' which clarifies this is not a hard delete, and flags permanence. It stops short of saying whether the action can be undone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two facts that matter (what happens to the object, and that it is irreversible). No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter mutation whose annotations already carry the destructive/idempotent profile, the description covers the essential outcome. It is slightly thin on whether archiving is reversible or requires specific authorization, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (project_id) and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage. The description adds no format, validation, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Archive) and resource (a project), and immediately clarifies the semantics of 'archive' as preserved-but-hidden. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling aethis_archive_ruleset, but the resource noun makes the target unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to archive versus using alternatives (e.g. aethis_list_projects, aethis_review_project) or any stated prerequisites such as required permissions or project state. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.